I think there should be a breakaway from the PFA. I'm not sure it should be on colour lines though, I'm sure there's plenty of decent white footballers, and Joey Barton, who would like to be a part of a new organisation that didn't just blanket defend any thing that's done by a member of the PFA.

Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.Walt Whitman

I think there should be a breakaway from the PFA. I'm not sure it should be on colour lines though, I'm sure there's plenty of decent white footballers, and Joey Barton, who would like to be a part of a new organisation that didn't just blanket defend any thing that's done by a member of the PFA.

Thats the crux of a trade union though, if a **** is paying his subs, he's entitled to representation. You've gotta stand up and give it your best, despite your personal belief he should be left to the firing squad (unless you can palm him off to another caseworker). Behind the scenes you can beg, cajole, plead with them that taking on the system is a waste of time and just going to give them a bad rep, as they've not really got a leg to stand on, but if they want you to represent them, then you have to. Usually the employer or whoever has managed to stuff up enough to find a loophole to get them off on (thats the point you lecture them how really lucky they've been and can tell them not to do it again)

"All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusions is called a philosopher." - Ambrose Bierce

Langeveldt: I of course blame their parents.. and unchecked immigration!GingerFurball: He's Austrian, they tend to produce the odd ****ed up individualBurgey: Be careful dealing with neighbours whose cars don't have wheels but whose houses do.Uppercut: Maybe I just need better strippers

Thats the crux of a trade union though, if a **** is paying his subs, he's entitled to representation. You've gotta stand up and give it your best, despite your personal belief he should be left to the firing squad (unless you can palm him off to another caseworker). Behind the scenes you can beg, cajole, plead with them that taking on the system is a waste of time and just going to give them a bad rep, as they've not really got a leg to stand on, but if they want you to represent them, then you have to. Usually the employer or whoever has managed to stuff up enough to find a loophole to get them off on (thats the point you lecture them how really lucky they've been and can tell them not to do it again)

Guess the issue with the racism stuff is that the person vilified is represented by the same group as the person accused of making the remarks. The question is whether both sides feel that the PFA has properly represented them.

IMO, the PFA had to come out hard and tough on the side of the victim, setting a precedent and making it clear to players, but unfortunately the perpetrator was the English captain who they couldn't be seen to desert. Unless they can blame it on a crowd or a manager, they've been shown to be impotent.

EDIT: impression from a casual, tbh, wasn't following the English papers that closely at the time.

Guess the issue with the racism stuff is that the person vilified is represented by the same group as the person accused of making the remarks. The question is whether both sides feel that the PFA has properly represented them.

IMO, the PFA had to come out hard and tough on the side of the victim, setting a precedent and making it clear to players, but unfortunately the perpetrator was the English captain who they couldn't be seen to desert. Unless they can blame it on a crowd or a manager, they've been shown to be impotent.

EDIT: impression from a casual, tbh, wasn't following the English papers that closely at the time.

I have total sympathy for vic's viewpoint, but, as cpr suggests, even ****s have the right to representation by their trade union. For their (the union's) part, they have to proceed with an assumption of innocence on the accused's part, especially when the case is also subject to legal proceedings.

If I was coughing up big dough every year just on the off chance I needed representation, I'd definitely be none too pleased if my organisation decided to make their own mind up about my case and take the moral high ground when that time finally came around.

I can see the other side too - I'd be equally disappointed if I was coughing up big dough every year just on the off chance I needed representation and then my organisation represented the other party when the time came even though they knew I was in the right - but you can't just leave paying members out in the cold.

I don't think a black players union or anything like that is the answer, but there probably does need to be a different process when there's a dispute between two players, rather than a player and someone else.

Last edited by Prince EWS; 25-10-2012 at 08:32 AM.

Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since Dec '09
'Stats' is not a synonym for 'Career Test Averages'

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Tucker

People go into politics to change the world. That's a bad idea. The only good reason to go into politics is to sweep government away so that the world can change itself.

Originally Posted by GIMH

Freddie is the greatest cricketer ever so the fact these comparisons are being made means three things:

Guess the issue with the racism stuff is that the person vilified is represented by the same group as the person accused of making the remarks. The question is whether both sides feel that the PFA has properly represented them.

IMO, the PFA had to come out hard and tough on the side of the victim, setting a precedent and making it clear to players, but unfortunately the perpetrator was the English captain who they couldn't be seen to desert. Unless they can blame it on a crowd or a manager, they've been shown to be impotent.

EDIT: impression from a casual, tbh, wasn't following the English papers that closely at the time.

Not big on my info on the trade union movement, what happens in an average workplace if two colleagues in a dispute with each other are represented by the same union.

Not big on my info on the trade union movement, what happens in an average workplace if two colleagues in a dispute with each other are represented by the same union.

First port of call is to try and sort the dispute out between them, with the union acting as a moderator/go between. The last thing they want is either party going in the book as being accused of something, or being seen to throw accusations around willy nilly.

If it has to go through formal channels such as a grievance process, then yes both will get a rep from the union (they can always call someone in from out of branch as a neutral if needs), but the likelyhood is the reps will always be looking to bring the two parties to a mutual solution based on understanding each sides viewpoint.

If it is a case of where someone is wrong, the rep should be trying to explain where they are wrong, and what company policy/anti-discrimination legislation they have broken, and explain the situation to them. If they are too stubborn to admit defeat, then the rep just has to do the best they can for the person, whilst managing their expectations of sucess.

Actually a mate of mine over at Unison was telling me of an old case he had once where a bloke lamped his colleague as he found he'd been banging his wife behind his back. Was a case of inform the management of the mitigating circs, so the guy who threw hands got off pretty lightly, and look for ways the attacked could continue to work for the company in another department, away from any further ambushes.

I dont know of any cases in our branch in the last year thats been member v member going through a formal grievance. Mainly its member v company action (though the manager acting on behalf of the company is invarably a member, they tend to invoke HR/senior management to fight their corner, as its usually their guidance thats caused the issue!)